any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Martin Spies]

Richard Pyle wrote:
>>Martin Spies wrote:
>>With reference to
>>your above statements: if a species has been transferred, then the
>>original combination is available but not valid; and, obviously, many
>>combinations containing a given species epithet can be available, but
>>only one can be valid at a given point in time - and, in my opinion,
>>this pertains to both nomenclatural and taxonomic validity.
>
> I'm not sure I follow.  I don't believe that the ICZN Code deals with
> "availability" of combinations.
In focusing on the expression "combination is available" you may have
missed the context, i.e. what the entire paragraph was aiming at. If a
species was described as Aus aus, and later transferred to become Bus
aus, then the scientific species name (=combination) Aus aus - or, if
you must, both Aus and aus in this combination - is/are available, but
- barring reasons to the contrary - Bus aus is valid, whereas Aus aus
is not.
Can we agree on this much?

> I will agree that any given taxonomist should have only one "valid" notion
> of a species epithet and of the genus in which it should be placed, at any
> one moment in time.
Seems like that should have been self-understood throughout this
discussion, but it's exactly what I said, so thank you for your agreement.

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany